Nearly ten years before composing his first symphony, Elgar had been intrigued by the idea of writing a symphony to commemorate General
Charles George Gordon rather as
Beethoven's
Eroica was originally intended to celebrate
Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1899 he wrote to his friend
August Jaeger (the "Nimrod" of the
Enigma Variations), "Now as to Gordon: the thing possesses me, but I can't write it down yet." he continued work on it, finishing the first movement. After his return to England he worked on the rest of the symphony during the summer of 1908. Elgar had abandoned the idea of a "Gordon" symphony, in favour of a wholly non-programmatic work. He had come to consider
abstract music as the pinnacle of orchestral composition. In 1905 he gave a lecture on
Brahms's
Symphony No. 3, in which he said that when music was simply a description of something else it was carrying a large art somewhat further than he cared for. He thought music, as a simple art, was at its best when it was simple, without description, as in the case of the Brahms symphony. The first page of the manuscript carries the title, "Symphony for Full Orchestra, Op. 55." To the music critic
Ernest Newman he wrote that the new symphony was nothing to do with Gordon, and to the composer
Walford Davies he wrote, "There is no programme beyond a wide experience of human life with a great charity (love) and a massive hope in the future." The London première followed four days later, at the
Queen's Hall, with the
London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Richter. By February 1909 the
New York Philharmonic Orchestra had given two more performances at
Carnegie Hall and had taken the work to "some of the largest inland cities ... It is doubtful whether any symphonic work has aroused so great an interest since
Tchaikowsky's
Pathétique." In the same period the work was played six times in London, under the baton of Richter, the composer, and
Henry Wood.
The Musical Times printed a digest of press comments on the symphony.
The Daily Telegraph was quoted as saying, "[T]hematic beauty is abundant. It is exquisite in the adagio, and in the first and second allegros, the latter a kind of scherzo; when the rhythmic impulse, the power and the passion are at their extreme height, when the music becomes almost frenzied in its superb energy, the sense of sheer beauty is still strong."
The Morning Post, wrote, "This is a work for the future, and will stand as a legacy for coming generations; in it are the loftiness and nobility that indicate a masterpiece, though its full appreciation will only be from the most serious-minded; to-day we recognise it as a possession of which to be proud."
The Evening Standard said, Here we have the true Elgar – strong, tender, simple, with a simplicity bred of inevitable expression. ... The composer has written a work of rare beauty, sensibility, and humanity, a work understandable of all."
The Musical Times refrained from quoting
The Observer, which was the only dissenting voice among the main newspapers. It complained that the work was derivative of
Mendelssohn,
Brahms and
Wagner, and thought the theme of the slow movement "cheap ready-made material". It allowed, however, that "Elgar's orchestration is so magnificently modern that the dress disguises the skeleton." This adverse view was in contrast with the praise in
The Times: "[A] great work of art, which is lofty in conception and sincere in expression, and which must stand as a landmark in the development of the younger school of English music." In
The Manchester Guardian,
Samuel Langford described the work as "sublime ... the work is the noblest ever penned for instruments by an English composer."
The Times noted the influence of Wagner and Brahms: "There are characteristic reminiscences of
Parsifal... and rhythmically the chief theme looks like an offspring of Brahms" but concluded "it is not only an original work, but one of the most original and most important that has been added to the stock of recent music."
The New York Times, which also detected the influence of
Parsifal, and, in the finale, of
Verdi's
Aida, called the symphony "a work of such importance that conductors will not lightly let it drop." ==Musical analysis==